Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gov healthcare
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="wkmac" data-source="post: 583475" data-attributes="member: 2189"><p>You are an easy target!</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>Free market answer to say Iraq would not be for the gov't to subcontract because the truth is, Saddam's only threat to the US if you even want to call it that was his threats and attempts of <a href="http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/173/30447.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">trading oil for Euro's instead of dollars</span></a> which threatened the supremacy of the dollar and it's global reserve currency status. Between himself, Osama, Chavez and Iran who a few years back out of nowhere became the next subject matter of invasion <a href="http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">(wonder why)</span></a> along with the help of a few silent partners, they may have the last laugh. Other than that, Saddam's only threat was what we over the years had given him and it's known now that he either used it up or it was uncovered in the post Gulf War era before 2003'. He even <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">admitted</span></a> and the facts seem to support that his talk was all BS and that he was playing a game of political chicken and got called on his bluff. A paranoid, murderous idiot to his own, he was that but I see no threat in him to the United States.</p><p></p><p>Remove this from the table and it leaves one other reason to invade and that was over oil at the pleasure of the Saudis, <a href="http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">their pleasure of course</span></a> (notice the price in the 1980's when another war in the region was happening?) and in a larger picture of Caspian Basin oil interests. Oh that in itself is an interesting and very worthy study in geo/economic politics especially the Caspian Sea drilling turf contracts.</p><p></p><p>Being that these were the real purpose of the war then the true free market approach would have been for all those various business interests to pay and hire for themselves the Blackwaters, KBRs, etc. by raising capital through investors or raising the costs of their products and forcing the consumers of such to pay for it all. Neither gov't nor taxpayer would have any stake in the whole matter and at the same time, those same businesses also would not recieve any special treatment, subsidy or tax advantage over any other company or individual person so there the economic playing field would be level for all. No one company by political advantage would be able to bury a burden or cost on the taxpayer and therefore the potential for the best allocation of resources would take place.</p><p></p><p>Truth is, no war would take place because the return on investment isn't worth the allocation of capital and resources. Free markets would force both sides to negocitate a workable fair agreement without force of fraud. I wonder how many countries agree to inequitable contracts with US business interests because these same interests have the US taxapayer paying "Tough Tony" to come in as the shake down guy to get them to play US interest ball. I don't see that kind of action at all in what the founding fathers had in mind in regards to self defense. If anything, it sounds more like King George, you know, the guy they fought against to make this country happen!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Read Article 6 of the US Constitution:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There's your achilles heel and the reason I've said most often, "GO READ TREATY LAW!"</p><p></p><p>In 1919' an international organization formed out of the Versailles Treaty known as the International Labor Organization and in 1934' the United States became an official member. ILO is even codified under Title 22 USC Chapter 7, sec. 271 as an official recognized international body to which we have binding international agreements. While you are at the link, look over the many other bodies listed we have other agreements with and the considering Art. 6 above maybe a tinkling of why maybe the constitution you so love seems to get ignored all the time?</p><p><img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":wink2:" title="Wink :wink2:" data-shortname=":wink2:" /></p><p></p><p>Nationalized Healthcare? <img src="/community/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/FeltTip/surprised.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":surprised:" title="Surprised :surprised:" data-shortname=":surprised:" /></p><p></p><p>How did we get social security when it seems so contary to the organic constitution? Hmmmmm! ILO in 1934', <a href="http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html" target="_blank"><span style="color: red">Social Security Act in 1935'</span></a> but did you know that this act passed in August of 1935' was the 2nd version as the first was overturned by SCOTUS in May of 1935'? You see gov't likes to float and test ideas so in 1934' our good gov't passed a social security act over those workers only who engaged in Interstate transportation, there's the commerce clause again, and in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v Alton R. Co. 295 U.S. 330, 368, 55 S.Ct. 758, 771 (1935). The court said the following in it's opinion.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="wkmac, post: 583475, member: 2189"] You are an easy target! :wink2: Free market answer to say Iraq would not be for the gov't to subcontract because the truth is, Saddam's only threat to the US if you even want to call it that was his threats and attempts of [URL='http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/173/30447.html'][COLOR=red]trading oil for Euro's instead of dollars[/COLOR][/URL] which threatened the supremacy of the dollar and it's global reserve currency status. Between himself, Osama, Chavez and Iran who a few years back out of nowhere became the next subject matter of invasion [URL='http://www.energybulletin.net/node/7707'][COLOR=red](wonder why)[/COLOR][/URL] along with the help of a few silent partners, they may have the last laugh. Other than that, Saddam's only threat was what we over the years had given him and it's known now that he either used it up or it was uncovered in the post Gulf War era before 2003'. He even [URL='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/01/AR2009070104217.html'][COLOR=red]admitted[/COLOR][/URL] and the facts seem to support that his talk was all BS and that he was playing a game of political chicken and got called on his bluff. A paranoid, murderous idiot to his own, he was that but I see no threat in him to the United States. Remove this from the table and it leaves one other reason to invade and that was over oil at the pleasure of the Saudis, [URL='http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif'][COLOR=red]their pleasure of course[/COLOR][/URL] (notice the price in the 1980's when another war in the region was happening?) and in a larger picture of Caspian Basin oil interests. Oh that in itself is an interesting and very worthy study in geo/economic politics especially the Caspian Sea drilling turf contracts. Being that these were the real purpose of the war then the true free market approach would have been for all those various business interests to pay and hire for themselves the Blackwaters, KBRs, etc. by raising capital through investors or raising the costs of their products and forcing the consumers of such to pay for it all. Neither gov't nor taxpayer would have any stake in the whole matter and at the same time, those same businesses also would not recieve any special treatment, subsidy or tax advantage over any other company or individual person so there the economic playing field would be level for all. No one company by political advantage would be able to bury a burden or cost on the taxpayer and therefore the potential for the best allocation of resources would take place. Truth is, no war would take place because the return on investment isn't worth the allocation of capital and resources. Free markets would force both sides to negocitate a workable fair agreement without force of fraud. I wonder how many countries agree to inequitable contracts with US business interests because these same interests have the US taxapayer paying "Tough Tony" to come in as the shake down guy to get them to play US interest ball. I don't see that kind of action at all in what the founding fathers had in mind in regards to self defense. If anything, it sounds more like King George, you know, the guy they fought against to make this country happen! Read Article 6 of the US Constitution: There's your achilles heel and the reason I've said most often, "GO READ TREATY LAW!" In 1919' an international organization formed out of the Versailles Treaty known as the International Labor Organization and in 1934' the United States became an official member. ILO is even codified under Title 22 USC Chapter 7, sec. 271 as an official recognized international body to which we have binding international agreements. While you are at the link, look over the many other bodies listed we have other agreements with and the considering Art. 6 above maybe a tinkling of why maybe the constitution you so love seems to get ignored all the time? :wink2: Nationalized Healthcare? :surprised: How did we get social security when it seems so contary to the organic constitution? Hmmmmm! ILO in 1934', [URL='http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html'][COLOR=red]Social Security Act in 1935'[/COLOR][/URL] but did you know that this act passed in August of 1935' was the 2nd version as the first was overturned by SCOTUS in May of 1935'? You see gov't likes to float and test ideas so in 1934' our good gov't passed a social security act over those workers only who engaged in Interstate transportation, there's the commerce clause again, and in the case of Railroad Retirement Board v Alton R. Co. 295 U.S. 330, 368, 55 S.Ct. 758, 771 (1935). The court said the following in it's opinion. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gov healthcare
Top
